Still, the cost (broadly conceived) of regulatory decrees to the judiciary is a factor weighing against the grant of equitable relief in this case. Pasadena City Board of Education, 611 F.2d 1239, 1245 n. The reluctance is not total there is no scarcity of elaborate regulatory decrees, particularly in civil rights suits against public institutions. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2942, at pp. VIA Metropolitan Transit System, 802 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. Courts should be, and generally are, reluctant to issue "regulatory" injunctions, that is, injunctions that constitute the issuing court an ad hoc regulatory agency to supervise the activities of the parties. The first is that the injunction requires the parties to maintain a cooperative relationship for its duration by enjoining the Cookie Company "from failing and refusing to sell cookie batter, accessories and promotional items as needed and requested by defendants." Such an injunction imposes a continuing duty of supervision on the issuing court, and this can be a drain on scarce judicial resources. § 1292(a) (1) authorizes an appeal from a nonfinal declaratory judgment.Įven if the court was right on that issue, there are two reasons to suppose that the Sigels had a somewhat heavier burden of demonstrating a solid likelihood of winning on the merits than in the usual case of one-sided irreparable harm. But the essential point is that no counterpart to 28 U.S.C. Board of Governors, 900 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds under the name MCorp Financial, Inc. 1974), while other cases affirm its existence. That irrelevant usage to one side, one case denies that there is such a thing as a preliminary declaratory judgment, Sigel v. Courts occasionally use the term as shorthand for the fact that a declaratory judgment is often a prelude to a request for coercive remedies. 2d 661 (1974) (per curiam).Īlthough a defective permanent injunction might be recharacterized as a declaratory judgment in order to preserve appellate jurisdiction, that route is not open here because we have a preliminary injunction and there is no appellate jurisdiction over preliminary declaratory judgments-assuming there is such a creature. This fell far short of compliance with Rule 65(d). The magistrate judge's opinion contains no actual injunction order, however, and the judgment order entered at the direction of the district judge states in its entirety: "The Court adopts and incorporates Magistrate Judge Bucklo's Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C., SECTION 636(b) (1) as Appendix A to this Order." So there was no injunction order but merely an incorporation by reference of the draft of an injunction contained in the Sigels' motion. shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained." The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge grant the Sigels' motion for a preliminary injunction, and he obliged. Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that "every order granting an injunction. There is a question about our jurisdiction, characteristically unremarked by the parties. (Both parties had additional grounds for their motions, but these need not be discussed.) The district court granted the Sigels' motion and denied that of the Cookie Company, 773 F.S. 121 1/2, p 1719, and moving for a preliminary injunction directing the Cookie Company to restore their franchise. The Sigels counterclaimed, charging that their franchise had been terminated in violation both of the franchise agreement and of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act,. §§ 1051 et seq., and moved for a preliminary injunction. So the company sued them (and their corporate entity) to enjoin their violating the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. The company terminated the Sigels' franchise but they continued to sell cookies under the company's trademark, using batter purchased elsewhere after their supply of Cookie Company batter ran out. This case arises from a squabble between a franchisor that we shall call the "Cookie Company" and the Sigels, who had a franchise to operate a Cookie Company store in a shopping mall in Aurora, Illinois.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |